DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 11/26/2025.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-14 are currently pending.
Claim(s) 1 has been amended.
Claim(s) 2 have been canceled.
Claim(s) 7-14 have been added.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1
For proper form it is suggested that claim 1 be amended as follows:
1. A vehicle exterior structure comprising:
a solar panel having a layer structure including a base sheet that supports a layer of photovoltaic material,
wherein the layer structure further includes a lower plastic film above the base sheet, an upper plastic film above the lower plastic film, and a covering layer above the upper plastic film;
wherein the photovoltaic material is encased between the upper plastic film and the lower plastic film;
wherein the illumination elements are installed in one of the layers of the layer structure of the solar panel and the covering layer is a coating layer; and
wherein the photovoltaic material defines a plurality of openings, wherein the illumination elements are disposed in the openings.
Regarding claim 6
The limitation “wherein the energy generated in the solar panels is stored in a battery of the vehicle, wherein a separate battery for at least one solar panel is installed close to one of the solar panels” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, recites a single solar panel. There is no prior recitation of “solar panels” in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3
The limitation “wherein the illumination elements are installed in the films” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the illumination elements are installed in the upper plastic film, the lower plastic film, or between said upper and lower plastic films. One of ordinary skill cannot reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim.
Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2022/224210 A1, Perlo et al. (hereinafter “Perlo”) with US 2024/0181861 A1 used as an searchable equivalent.
Regarding claim 1
Perlo teaches a vehicle exterior structure (see exterior structure of vehicle 24) [Fig. 8 and para. 0118] comprising:
a solar panel (any one of panels 32, 33 and 34) having a layer structure (See layered structure 100/101/PV/101/102) including a base sheet (102) that supports a layer of photovoltaic material (PV) [Figs. 8 and 30, paras. 0118, 0120 and 0149],
wherein the layer structure (100/101/PV/101/102) further includes a lower plastic film (lower polyolefin material 101), an upper plastic film (upper polyolefin material 101) above the lower plastic film (101), and a covering layer (outermost layer 100) above the upper plastic film [Fig. 30 and para. 0149];
wherein the photovoltaic material (PV) is encased between the upper plastic film (101) and the lower plastic film (101) [Fig. 30 and para. 0149];
wherein illumination elements (corresponding to passive display elements 40) are installed in one of the layers of the layer structure (100/101/PV/101/102) of the solar panel (any one of 32, 33 and/or 34) [Figs. 8 and 30, paras. 0118, 0120 and 0149], and the covering layer (100) is a coating layer (one or more layers of PET with a UV or ECTFE coating) [Fig. 30, paras. 0120 and 0149]; and
wherein the photovoltaic material (PV) defines a plurality of openings (see portions noted with arrows in Fig. 30 below), wherein the illumination elements (40) are disposed in the openings [Figs. 8 and 30, paras. 0051 and 0120].
PNG
media_image1.png
298
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
775
960
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3
Perlo teaches the vehicle exterior structure as set forth above, wherein the illumination elements are installed in the films (the display elements 40 are installed on the base sheet 102 and between layers of plastic films 101) [Fig. 30, paras. 0120 and 0149].
Regarding claim 4
Perlo teaches the vehicle exterior structure as set forth above, wherein the illumination elements (40) are LEDs [Fig. 8 and para. 0120].
Regarding claim 5
Perlo teaches the vehicle exterior structure as set forth above, wherein the illumination elements (40) are individually controllable and serve as display elements (“[p]assive display elements 40, for example, colored or reflective, or active, such as LED light sources, can be arranged at the intersections between the cell-free strips, which can be used to display writings or logos on the panels 33, 34”) [para. 0120].
Regarding claim 6
Perlo teaches the vehicle exterior structure as set forth above, wherein the energy generated in the solar panels (33) is stored in a battery (corresponding to a battery pack) of the vehicle [paras. 0100, 0123-0125], wherein a separate battery (any one of battery modules B1-B4) for at least one solar panel (33) is installed close to one of the solar panels (one of ordinary skill would consider the floor F of the vehicle being “close” to the solar panels 33) [Figs. 22A-22B and paras. 0123-0124].
8. (New) The vehicle exterior structure of claim 7, wherein the openings are defined between adjacent corners of the solar cells [Fig. 8].
Regarding claim 9
Perlo teaches the vehicle exterior structure as set forth above, wherein the openings are enclosed on their periphery by the adjacent corners [Figs. 8 and 30].
Regarding claim 12
Perlo teaches the vehicle exterior structure as set forth above, wherein four solar cells (See PV elements) have a contact area therebetween [Fig. 8], wherein the contact area defines the opening in which the illumination element (40) is disposed [Fig. 8].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlo, as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 9 and 12 above, and further in view of US 2022/0242210 A1, Williams.
Regarding claims 7 and 10
Perlo does not teach the photovoltaic material being defined by a plurality of monocrystalline solar cells (instant claim 7) or being a thin-film photovoltaic material (instant claim 10).
Williams teaches a vehicle comprising a solar panel having a plurality of photovoltaic cells, wherein the photovoltaic cells can be of monocrystalline, polycrystalline, or thin-film cells [paras. 0038-0039].
Perlo and Williams are analogous inventions in the field of vehicles comprising solar panels. Because Williams teaches choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solar cell structures for use in vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143].
Since Williams teaches that monocrystalline, polycrystalline, or thin-film cells leads to the anticipated success, said structures are not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143].
Regarding claim 8
Modified Perlo teaches the vehicle exterior structure as set forth above, wherein the openings are defined between adjacent corners of the solar cells (PV) [see Fig. 8].
PNG
media_image2.png
775
960
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11
The prior art of record, whether alone or in combination, fail to teach or fairly suggest the limitation “wherein the openings are defined as recesses in the thin film”, in the context of other limitations of the claims.
One or ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the structure of Perlo such that the openings are defined as recesses in the thin film because such a modification would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in Perlo and there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation disclosed in the art that would lead one of ordinary skill to perform such a modification. [MPEP 2143.01 VI].
Regarding claim 13
Perlo teaches the battery modules electrically connected in series [para. 0125].
The prior art of record, whether alone or in combination, fail to teach or fairly suggest the limitation “wherein the solar cells are arranged in series in a row and electrically contacted via contact strips, wherein an adjacent row is also arranged in series and electrically contacted via contact strips, wherein the illumination elements are interconnected in series and sit on a conduction strip”, in the context of other limitations of the claims.
One or ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the structure of Perlo as required by the instant claim because such a modification would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in Perlo and there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation disclosed in the art that would lead one of ordinary skill to perform such a modification. [MPEP 2143.01 VI].
Regarding claim 14
Claim 14 is allowed for its dependency on claim 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Perlo refers to its arrangement of solar cells as being separated by cell-free strips.
Applicant argues that the intersections of the cell-free strips are disclosed as being the light location and that Perlo's solar cells or photovoltaic material do not define the recited openings.
Applicant further argues that the lights are disposed within the crisscrossing cell-free strips and that the strips separate the cells, such that they do not border each other.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0051] of Perlo discloses the following:
[0051] According to another preferred characteristic, each panel of photovoltaic cells has an ordered distribution in rows and columns of photovoltaic cells, separated by cell-free strips or zones, and in that in at least some of the intersections between the said cell-free strips or zones reflecting devices or LED light sources are arranged, configured to display—as an assembly—passive colored or reflective or active writings and/or logos through the LED sources.
As seen in Fig. 8, the LED light sources (40) are disposed in cell-free strips OR zones that are defined by the photovoltaic material (see annotated Fig. 8 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
775
960
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that no openings or recesses are defined in Perlo.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At least seen in Figs. 8 and 30, the cells define cell-free zones/openings (see areas noted with arrows in Fig. 30 below). Examiner notes that the claimed photovoltaic material itself does not include openings, rather the photovoltaic material “defines” openings. Such is consistent with para. [0017] of the instant published specification, wherein it is disclosed that “the illumination elements are installed in openings between monocrystalline solar cells or in recesses of the thin-film photovoltaic material.”
PNG
media_image1.png
298
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721